www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West What would make you Orthodox?

Yes, indeed, Dave. Thanks so much. I certainly would not lump Jaroslav Pelikan into the same boat with Franky Schaeffer. The former is a serious, respected scholar; the latter, I think, is mainly a polemicist whose anti-Catholic diatribes can be rather intemperate and even rather hurtful, IMHO. (He writes funny novels, though. )

Also, Father: My friend Edwin Tait would be surprised to see himself described as a "noted" historian. He's about 27 or so, and he's finishing up his doctorate in Church history at Duke. I don't think he's even been around long enough to be "noted," except among us message-board denizens, who admire his wisdom, insight, knowledge, and all-around brilliance.

Edwin made his observations about Franky Schaeffer after he'd been to see Schaeffer at an Orthodox church in Raleigh, I believe. According to Edwin, Schaeffer was very good on the problems in contemporary Protestantism, but when he started attacking Catholicism, he was much more "superficial" (Edwin's term). Also, according to Edwin, Schaeffer kept making these airy assertions without bothering to back them up with historical data or patristic citations. (E.g., he simply assumed as indisputable fact that the early patristic Church looked exactly like contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. Edwin, as an historian, knows that such a claim is simplistic, to say the least, and extremely debatable: It certainly should not be advanced as an indisputable given, especially since most secular historians could easily challenge it. Or as Edwin himself put it: Schaeffer's assertion "runs counter to the scholarly consensus." )

I certainly don't claim that Edwin the graduate student is an established, respected, much less "noted" scholar. But since he's one smart dude, very learned, and still very much Anglican -- without a pro-RC ax to grind -- I tend to respect his insights.

Like most scholars, he's also very judicious in his judgments and temperate in his diction. His favorite expression seems to be "on the other hand" -- i.e., he is fair to a fault. I think y'all would like him. (Perhaps I'll invite him over to this board. :p )

Re Likoudis: Like Whelton and Schaeffer, he is more a polemicist than a scholar. However, I happen to think he's a fairer, more accurate one than either Whelton or Schaeffer. In any case, I think his arguments should be judged on their own merits, without dragging personalities into the picture. The question is: Did Whelton misquote Irenaeus, Cyprian, et al., and does Likoudis accurately demonstrate these mis-quotations (telling omissions and so forth)? If in fact Likoudis is right -- if Whelton's arguments really do rest on mis-quotations and omissions (whether deliberate or not), then we must deal with the implications of this. That is, we must ask how credible Whelton's doctored "evidence" is. If it's not very credible, then we must ask ourselves whether it's right to make major religious decisions based on such apparently faulty evidence.

That is all I was trying to say to Jeff above. Please forgive me, Father, for expressing myself so ineptly and offensively.

Blessings,

ZT

But I think Edwin's insistence that this "fantasy" is a view of Schaeffer's alone seems rather naive. Now one can debate what is meant by "looked exactly like..." I'm not even sure what that means. Sure, the Orthodox faith doesn't look "exactly like" the Church of the Patristic age. (I don't look exactly like I did when I was 15 years old, but I'm the same person.) However, it is certainly and undeniably the Orthodox claim, Schaefferian or not, that the Church of the Patristic age is the Orthodox Church. So I'm not exactly sure what Edwin's objection is to what Schaefer is saying. I submit that the objection that most (even Orthodox) have with Schaeffer is the way he says it. But then, Schaeffer never claimed to be a historian or a theologian, only one who found the Orthodox faith and wishes to proclaim his story and conclusions in his particular way.

Priest Thomas

I was at Schaeffer's lecture in Raleigh and loved his analysis of Protestantism but have to admit that he strained himself really badly to try and make Roman Catholicism fit into the same category of "falling apart Christianity." He then launched into a 45 minute attack on Islam and said (not implied) that the USA should bar any more Muslims from entering the USA lest we become a Muslim nation. At that point I was shocked, but being the fair minded person I am, I took him as he was. I liked his lecture minus the stupid comments and found him to be a dynamic speaker. One Greek Orthodox priest whom I know was in attendence (not the priest in Raleigh lest anyone be reading this!) and I overheard him say to another person that basically he thought Schaeffer was an idiot. But the Antiochian Orthodox priest in Raleigh is good friends with Shaeffer and says he is a very dedicated Christian. I'd have to assess Schaeffer as basically someone who is good at getting people interested in apologetics and evangelization but who is not suited for critiquing anything other than where he's been.

In Christ,

anastasios

Well, I can't think that Likoudis or Whelton, or Shaefffer are all wrong in their interpretations of Patristic and ancient authors as well as history of christianity. The problem is that for a Latin catholic the ancient writing will prove that the Latin Church is right, and an Orthodox christian will find that Orthodoxy is right too. I mean, if the Bishops, patriarchas and Popes of the Church were never able to agree, how can we expect Mr. Likoudis and M. Whelton to be all right?

I also think it is not good to say "nobody takes him seriously". All of these authors are serious people who have been researching history and studying and have made an effort to give something good to the christian community, no matter if one disagrees with their views.

One of the things I don't like about the modern Orthodox apologetic writers, is how they view Protestantism. Many articles seem to praise Protestantism a lot, and are "sweet and tender" with Lutherans and Anglicans, while do not hesitate in calling the Latin Church heretical and evil. It is also understandable cause many of those who write them are former Protestants, and as Americans who live in a country were Protestants are a majority, they think they'll get the sympathy (and maybe the future conversion) of Protestants trying to imitate their hate toward Roman Catholicism.

I've also seen this feeling (among some Orthodox from the USA, mostly converts) that Roman Catholicism is as far from Orthodoxy than Protestantism, and that Protestant sects and the Latin Church are in the same "level." Some directives of the clergy of the OCA, "clasifying" the kind of converts according to their origin, list some "denominations" which include both the Roman catholic and the "Assembly of God" in the same place, stating that their converts must all be chrismated and exposing something about their "common doctrines" (so the Latin Church and their 7 sacraments and their Apostolic succession and the pentecostal Assemblies of God are the same I suppose.)

Dear Brothers and Sisters:

I've read the original question that Alex posted and have followed the replies. It seems to me that what started as a reflection has turned into an ugly exchange of polemics. That saddens me a great deal.

I am the first to defend against religious indifferentism--the thinking that all religions are the same or that all beliefs expressed with the preface that they are "in the name/mind of Christ" are of equal weight.

But I thought that the purpose of this Forum was to find common ground and to build each other up.

I was born and baptized into the Latin Catholic Church. As such, I believe that I have the obligation to believe what the Church teaches. On the other hand, if I had been born into the Orthodox Church, I would have a similar obligation.

I made a point on another thread that at some level that God alone probably can define we are all brothers and sisters by Baptism. I don't pretend to define it; I leave that to the theologians.

But there is one thing that I am certain of: no one who hates another human being has God in his heart or has even come to begin to have a relationship with the God Who has revealed Himself to us in this Holy Season. Christ came to redeem all of mankind, not just the Catholics or the Orthodox, or the Protestants, or the Oriental Orthodox.

I have learned much from people who may not believe the same things that I do. I continue to do so. Sometimes I cannot adopt these things into my own spiritual life, but at least I can provide empathy for another if I come across him in pain. It means that I can reach another human being because I now speak his language.

Rather than confront and argue over books published, why can't we find something to agree about?

For all the Catholics out there, the Vatican Council provides us with direction in our relationships with our Orthodox brothers and sisters. I'll say here that if I suddenly found myself in some part of the world where could not reach a Catholic community of any stripe, I would approach an Orthodox community for spiritual assistance. This assumes, of course, that I was to be in this place and situation for a prolonged period and not be able to get to a Catholic community. This isn't apostasy; this is common sense in providing for souls.

My own community here in central Pennsylvania provides a temporary home for a Coptic Orthodox family. No one tries to convert them, but we welcome them so they are not isolated. Their closest parish is about 3 and 1/2 hours away. This isn't religious indifferentism, but simply orthopraxy: the Faith put into practice.

I have friends in almost every Christian community that exists here in this part of the country. We're in the middle of a culture war in case you haven't noticed and there are many things that we can do together even when we are not in full communion. We can, for example, work for the elimination of pornography on the internet to protect children. We can work to provide help for troubled youth and lonely older people. We may not agree on much theology, but we all have some God-given sense of what the world should look like if we put our belief in Christ into practice.

But we don't have time to hate our neighbor.

BOB

This is not accurate. RCs are not received like Protestants by the OCA (or the mother Russian Church). There are two forms supplied both involving Chrism but they are not the same. Further RC priests can be received by the OCA (and mother Russian Church) by vesting, Protestant Clergy obviously cannot. There are ample examples of this in parishes in the USA. Speculation is not necessary. Further RCs can be received without anointing with Chrism in some jurisdictions, Protestants cannot.

This entire thread is offensive to Orthodoxy. Only after an Orthodox defends Orthodoxy does love and tolerance and support get mentioned. So Orthodoxy can be bashed and that's OK, but if it is defended people get bent out of shape?

I can't quite agree, Remie. I think the Truth is[/] out there. We aren't consigned to hopeless relativism.

I believe that the preponderance of the evidence will show either one thing or the other -- either that Catholicism (the Church in communion with Rome) = the Church Jesus founded and hence the fullness of the faith OR that modern Eastern Orthodoxy (not in communion with Rome) = that Christ-founded Church.

Obviously, Jesus founded One Church, not two, so one or the other of these two competing ecclesiologies must be true. They can't both be true because, finally, they're mutually exclusive...they flatly contradict each other. Either Jesus founded the Church upon Peter the Rock and intended Peter's successors to exercise universal jurisdictional primacy. Or He didn't. One or 'tother. But not both.

If, then, He founded One Church, it must be possible to figure out which one it is. We can't figure this out solely on the basis of reason. We need faith, too. But faith builds on reason, so reason plays a role as well. That being so, we can look at the evidence and see what the preponderance of the data shows us.

I submit that the preponderance of the data (the patristic sources, etc.) shows just what Dave Brown described in an earlier post: that the Church began recognizing papal jurisdictional primacy from a very early period...and that this understanding unfolded more and more over the centuries, well before the Schism.

That does not mean that the Vatican I/Vatican II conception of the papacy sprang up full-blown on the Day of Pentecost like Athena from the head of Zeus. This would be totally anachronistic. But neither does it mean that papal jurisdictional primacy was a medieval invention. The data overwhelmingly show otherwise.

IMHO, the evidence flatly disproves the polemical claim that the early Church recognized only a primacy of honor for Peter's successors. That is my contention, and I am foolish and hubristic enough to believe that evidence aplenty can be adduced to bear it out.

IOW, the truth is out there, and if we look honestly at enough primary evidence, we can find it!

Of course, that raises the question as to why very wise and learned people -- far wiser and more learned than I -- reach very different conclusions from mine. This question applies not only to brilliant Orthodox scholars like Jaroslav Pelikan but also to equally brilliant [i]Protestant historians who sincerely conclude that the early patristic evidence favors a purely invisible Church. Both Orthodox and Catholics on this board would agree that those Protestant scholars are wrong in concluding that the early Church was "invisible" a la the Calvinist model, right? Yet very learned historians nonetheless buy into this ecclesiological model. (Philip Schaff, if I'm not mistaken, retained a Protestant ecclesiology to his dying day, despite his thorough knowledge of the primary sources.)

How? Why? Does these learned Protestants' faulty conclusion mean that it's impossible to identify the True Church...that the evidence is susceptible of all sorts of different interpretations, so that finally we must throw up our hands in despair of ever resolving the issue?

I think not. I think the evidence does lean heavily in one direction -- in the direction of Catholic ecclesiology. Why, then, do some very leanred scholars (by far my betters) fail to recognize this?

Well, for that matter, why do so many equally brilliant scholars fail to recognize Christ...fail to believe in the Incarnation or the Resurrection? It's a mystery. That's all I can say. It's a mystery.

I think human pride and rebelliousness can play a role. (The human will naturally rebels against the whole notion of "submission" to Christ's Supreme Vicar...just as the non-Christian's will rebels against the whole notion of submission to Christ Himself.)

Other factors probably play a role, too -- e.g., family/ethnic ties/customs that are very hard to break; old, ingrained prejudices that are nearly impossible to shuck; etc.

But finally, it's a mystery why an unworthy simpleton like me is led to the fullness of the faith whereas a brilliant guy like Jaroslav Pelikan stops a bit short (although certainly he has at least been led to a genuinely apostolic particular Church with valid Sacraments, and that's 99% of the battle:)).

Nonetheless, even though wise and learned people reach very different conclusions, that doesn't mean that the evidence is infinitely malleable or that the truth (small-t historical truth) can't possibly be discovered. I believe it can. I believe faith building on reason can recognize in the historical record an unfolding pattern of papal jurisdictional primacy.

I suggest that the whole reason why Mr. Whelton saw fit to "doctor" the evidence by omitting key phrases and passages is that he could see that the data favored papal primacy more than he was willing to admit. I'm still not convinced he was deliberately mendacious...maybe he was so desperate to avoid the implications of the data that he snip-snipped out those loaded passages without quite realizing he was doing so. Who knows? Human motivation is an extremely complex thing, and only Jesus knows the heart.

Be that as it may, though, I do think that the undoctored evidence shows one thing more than another. I think the truth is findable. I think that all we need is an open mind and an open heart and a willingness to follow Jesus no matter where he leads us. Even if He leads us (gasp!) toward Rome.

I apologize in advance if this seems obnoxious or whatever. Like Dave Bown, I adhere to Dominus Iesus. And like Bob, I don't want to start a religious war. But I must be true to my convictions....

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. Here's a quote I like from an Anglican historian named Dr. Trevor Gervais Jalland:

"The evidence...will show, we believe, that the Roman see was recognized as possessing from very early times, if not in fact from the beginning, an undoubted primacy in the sphere of doctrine, at least in the sense of a right to be heard in preference to others. Even those who would favor an ambiguous or even a negative verdict cannot forget the fragmentary nature of the evidence at our disposal, nor the extent to which, in this case as with many other historical problems, particularly of the first and second centuries, we are dependent on inference and reasonable conjecture. Equally, as we venture to believe, it will emerge that the primacy of jurisdiction...namely the right to act as supreme judge in matters of discipline, if not traceable as far back as the doctrinal primacy, is at least contemporary in respect of its development with the evolution of episcopal jurisdiction." -- The Church and the Papacy: An Historical Study, London: 1946.

Is this quote by a former Anglican? If not, what sense does he/it make?

Among Orthodox theologians, there is no denial of the idea of "primacy" in the Church. There is no official "conspiracy" to "cover up" the fact that in the early church, eventually (but certainly not from the very beginning) Rome was the first among equals, and that the Roman bishop was first in responsibility for maintaining the unity of the Church, and that his responsibilities extended somewhat beyond chairing the meetings.

However, what is clearly disputed are two things: First, that the interpretation of the "Rock" of Peter is not Peter himself, or Rome, or his office, but his confession of faith. We find this in the earliest writings, from Origen on down. Even the blessed Augustine himself clearly teaches this, on his sermon on Peter and Paul. What this means is that any claims by "Rome" as somehow holding a primacy only because it was the successor to Peter (using a faulty interpretation) is fallacious, or at least, deficient. Antioch and Jerusalem can easily make the same claims. Rome had a primacy because of the succession of Peter (and Paul) and because it was the seat of the emperor. These two reasons together give Rome primacy in the early church.

Second, in a thoughful analysis by Fr. Alexander Schmemann, based on earlier work by Nichloas Afanassieff, he clearly demonstrates that the ecclesiology in the West had changed, had shifted, so that the idea of a "Universal Jurisdiction" of the bishop of Rome in the sense of "universal power" was the clear "development" of a theology which was no longer was based on a "eucharistic ecclesiology," that is, the fullness of the Church is manifested in the community gathered around its bishop celebrating the eucharist, but it was now that the church itself was defined as being the "sum of its parts," each local community was only a part of the whole church, and because the church was now seen as all of the communities together, this "universal church" needed a "universal bishop" at its head. Once again, in Orthodoxy, this is seen as a distortion and (in his words) a poisonous development.

So, if it is a mere acknowledgement of Roman primacy in the undividided church, or even the role of the bishop of Rome that is disputed here among the writers stated in previous posts, I think Orthodox theologians have largely shown that it existed, and they define it as more than just a "chairmanship" or a "primacy of honor alone." No one in the early church disputed Rome's primacy. However, simply pointing to patristic texts to "prove" Roman primacy is not the full story, because the Orthodox claim is that something changed, and it is precisely the "change" that caused the division, for, in the view of Orthodoxy, Rome was no longer confessing the faith of Peter, which Christ referred to as "the rock" upon which He would build His Church.

Priest Thomas Soroka
St. Nicholas Orthodox Church
McKees Rocks, PA
http://www.stnicholas-oca.org

Tony:

To the best of my knowledge, this Anglican historian remained Anglican. Why? Search me. It's a mystery.

I'll try to grapple with Father Thomas's post tomorrow -- it opens up a very large subject that my poor addled brain is ill equipped to deal with at any time but especially not late at night.

Perhaps we could start a new thread for this topic?

Blessings,

ZT

P.S. How does one edit one's posts? I want to remove all the funky unnecessary italics from my post up above but I don't know how.

Thanks in advance....

ZT

I am not sure what's our Alex was after when he posed this thread, but I'm pretty sure that he was not after increasing any DisUniya between the Churches.

I had always presumed, and perhaps I was wrong, that the Byzantine Forum was a place, inter alia:

- where all Byzantine Christians (at least), whether in Communion with older Rome, New Rome, Antioch, Kyiv, Moscow, etc., etc., could come together in mutual respect and discuss issues in common, issues important to our common Byzantine Faith and Christianity;

- where we presume the validity of each other's Communions both "Catholic" and "Orthodox";

- where, thorough our shared prayer and spiritual conversation, we strive to overcome what divides our 2 Byzantine Communions;

- where, whilst respecting what the Spirit may to in finding us our ecclesial home on the basis of what is good for our souls and salvation in our own particular circumstances, where we do not seek to proselytise as between our 2 Communion or seek any "one-upmanship" between our 1 Church (Byzantine) divided tragically (and NOT happily) between 2 "jurisdictions" between which there is not yet inter-Communion.

Maybe I'm totally off-base and dreaming in technicolour [or whatever the latest thing is].

If I am wrong, I stand open to correction...

Herb

Tony:

This article deals with the attitude I described before

http://www.ocados.org/dawn/rebaptismletter.htm

This article also states that chrismation is the way Roman Catholics and "moderated" Protestants are received.

And this is another very good text, by Archimandrite Ambrosius Pagodin:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/reception_church_a_pagodin.htm

Only have time for a quick reply to Fr Thomas.

No one disputes that the interpretation that Peter's faith is the "rock" of Matthew chapter 16 is a valid one. It certainly has patristic support. One cannot separate Peter's faith from Peter himself, however.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/communion/eng/library/54.shtml

Sts Peter and Paul were martyred the same day and are commemorated together on June 29th. The Menaion certainly speaks of Peter as "the rock of faith." It also plainly speaks of Peter himself as the "rock":

This is all I have time for now. Wishing all a blessed Feast of St Seraphim of Sarov and Pope St Sylvester (Pope during the time the Council of Nicea), of whom the Menaion also states:

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dear Herbigny:

If this is indeed the purpose of this forum, will someone kindly let me know (officially, I mean?)

The ecclesiology you describe is not exactly that of the Catechism or of Dominus Iesus. So I'm a little bit confused.

I do not seek to "proselytize" my Orthodox brethren, but I do seek to defend Catholicism against inaccurate charges such as those leveled by Michael Whelton and Frank Schaeffer. Also, I cannot help mourning when a Catholic loyal to Rome decamps to Orthodoxy largely on the basis of false arguments, faulty evidence, and anti-Catholic polemics presented by people like Whelton and Schaeffer.

Sometimes my zeal gets the better of me, and I say intemperate, obnoxious things. Mea culpa!

But believe me, I'm an ecumenical pussycat compared with the likes of Franky Schaeffer. If he were on this forum, I very much doubt we'd have much mutual understanding and rapprochement.

So...I think it may be permissible (in the name of ecumenism) for me to point out the problems in the arguments of folks like Whelton and Schaeffer.

If the moderators think differently -- and if I am violating the spirit and letter of the objectives of this forum -- I hope someone Official will let me know. But please be kind -- I'm the sensitive type.

Blessings,

ZT